Tristan, if all costs were progressive, there would be no reason to endeavour to earn more wealth, would there? Hell, why even work if everything will still cost the same amount?

Also, please justify the ethics of your ideology. You seem to think that wealth is collectively owned and that it is unfair that some have more than others. Do you not believe that wealth created by an individual belongs exclusively to that individual? Do you believe a person is entitled to the redistributed wealth of others just for being born?

Tristan “Col Rouge criticises public health and education - but does not draw the natural conclusion that this might stem from underfunding rather than some intrinsic flaw with public provision of services.”

I said “because it is a “public / government service” does not guarantee it will be a good service” and it does not.

If I employ a plumber, a lawyer, a roofer or a vet, I decide which plumber, lawyer, roofer or vet. I decide which level of service / price I will pay.

Why is acquiring the services of a plumber, lawyer, roofer or Vet any different to the services of a school teacher or doctor?

Why should I be forced, through taxation, to pay for the mediocre service which is the result of incompetent bureaucratic bungling and absence of accountability.

The health and school services, unlike Tristan would claim have not been “underfunded” but have progressively squandered their resources by incompetence because, as we all know, you cannot sack an incompetent civil servant but you can sack a private school, a private doctor just as you can choose a different plumber, lawyer, roofer or Vet.
And if we get into institutionalised aged care on a broad public scale, we will see the same mediocre bureaucrats being eased out of the education and health departments to run it.

So pretending that tax funded government services are “Free” is the most expensive mistake anyone can ever make. Tristan, you can trawl up all the faux compassion and mealy mouthed excuses but REALITY is If you want it something done well, to your own satisfaction, you will make sure you choose for yourself and pay direct, rather than leave it to unelected bureaucrats to make the quality choices for you.

Seeker, your sarcasm is showing LOL

GT your point about the disincentive aspects of progressively high taxation is absolutely correct. The able and capable should not be taxed for exercising the skills (from which the entire community ultimately benefit through direct individual service use).

Tristan,

As I mentioned, you could compensate the losers from raising the GST rate by using some of the proceeds (say half) to maintain equity for them. The traditional mechanisms of raising the dole and pension along with raising the tax-free threshold would probably do the trick. If there are still holes that poor people fall through, the government could set up a GST Discount Card, say, to target help to them. It could just add this function onto the services smartcard it's developing.

You're missing my point that raising the GST automatically ensures the rich pay a greater proportion of tax, all other things staying equal. It actually counters to some degree the effect of Costello's just-announced income-tax breaks for the rich. Have a think about it.

Rob - A-higher-GST-can-be-justified-if-welfare-and-PAYE-income- taxation-are-restructured-to-redistribute-wealth.The problem, however, as we've seen with the recent budget, is that the income tax system is then warped in the interests of the wealthy while the lower thresholds remain un-indexed. Personally, if I were to introduce a 30% GST - which I wouldn't do btw - I would compensate people on AWE and below with tax credits. I'd also account for the ability of the wealthy to invest a greater portion of their income, and to avoid tax, by raising a number of other taxes, including capital gains tax and removing dividend imputation.

You'd need to change the whole formula for welfare also to keep the aged pension and other pensions: a) above the poverty line, b) at a certain proportion of AWE, c) continuously accounting for the impact of inflation, d) accoutnting for the impact of the GST.

It's do-able - but I can't shake the feeling that proper restructuring of the rest of the tax system for purposes of social justice would not follow.

re: justifying wealth redistribution and social expenditure. We receive wages based on market rates for wages. 'Letting the market decide' on its own, however, is not inherently just - as the market does not account for how hard or how well a person works.-There-is-also-the-matter-of-wealth-resulting-from-speculation-or- inheritance.-Also-basic-services-such-as-education,health-and-aged care-should-be-available-to-all-on-the-basis-of-need as a basic human right,and-for-the-sake-of-equality-of-opportunity. The tax system takes into account the injustices of market determination of wages, and recognises the need for capital to make a contribution to the maintenence of the infrastructure that it uses. Finally, there is a need for services such as aged care, education and health - and this need should be accounted for on the basis of ability to pay.

re:-the-public sector-'squandering'-money - I've-already-explained-in-the-article-the-grotesque-cost-associated-with-private-financing of-infrastructure-via-PPPs.-Also - by-and-large,-care-in-a-private-hosptial-is-more-expensive-than-care-in-a-public-hospital.-And-apart-from-inferior-student:teacher-ratios-and poorer quality infrastructure - all the consequence of underfunding - I see no reason to conclude that public education is 'essentially' inferior to private education. The Conservatives have an ideological predisposition against the public sector that ignores the facts - and tries to blame crises of underfunding on some 'inherent' flaw with public provision of services.

Tristan, as I have previously pointed out the current tax systems does not fit with "and this need should be accounted for on the basis of ability to pay.". Gross income is not a reliable indicator of the the ability to pay. You appear to be stuck in a mindset that ignores the injustices of this type of tax system. If pressed you admit to problems and then go on to ignore those problems.

As I've said before our tax system is not about justice, it is a means to an end. The continual assertion that there is any justice in it appears to blind you to the very real harm that it does to many middle income earners.

Likewise you seem to completely ignore the responsibilities of those who deliberately choose lower income in exchange for other lifestyle advantages. How do you intend to have them pay there share of those necessary public costs or are those responsibilities only for those who would like to have the use of money they have earned?

Please move on from the retoric and start engaging in debate that deals with the real world, not the compartments you seem to want to put people in based on income. Your approach hardens attitudes which can only hert the genuinely needy.

R0bert

I think tht people are kidding themselves, if they think that by raising the GST to say 20%, they would obtain all this money from the rich, to give to the rest.

Last I saw about 2% of taxpayers earn 150k+ before tax. About 140
thousand people in Aus are worth 1.3million Aus$ plus a house. Thats 0.7% of the population. How much do you think you will give to each of the 80% you want to redistribute to, how much do you plan to screw out of those 0.7% ?

The best option for Australia is to make the cake larger and to empower those people who think that the world owes them a living,
with the knowledge that their best hope lies with themselves, if they grab opportunities they either don't know about or haven't thought about or have so far been to lazy to bother about.

Throwing money at things via Govt expenditure, is not answer to everything either. There is huge waste now in Govt services. Far too much paperwork in the health system, not enough money spent on the coalface. State Govts can change that tomorrow if they wish.

Roughly half the Australian population own shares directly Tristan,
you are kidding yourself if you think its only the rich